Mushtaq Ahmed, J. - (1.) THESE are appeals, each filed by a particular party, Under Section 39, Arbitration Act, against orders one Under Section 14 and the other Under Section 33 of the Act.
(2.) THE applt. is a teacher and author of certain books. THE resp. 1 is a publisher who undertook to print and publish those books on condition of payment of royalty at a certain percentage. THE respt. 2 is related to resp. 1 as his son. THE remaining resps. 3 and 4 were the arbitrators. According to the case of the applt. the publishers had printed and published extra copies by printing wrong dates on them to avoid detection by the applt. who having come to know of this filed a complaint against the publishers. Pending the complaint, on 11-10-1945, there was an agreement between the parties that the matter in dispute would be refd. to the arbitration of two persons, and accordingly the complaint was got dismissed the following day. As one of the arbitrators had declined to act, another agreement on the same lines was executed by the parties on 30-10-1945. The agreement 'inter alia' provided that the entire matter was left to the arbitrators for their "decision" and that they would "look into the matter and give their decision within a fortnight". The agreement also provided that the arbitrators would "be fully entitled to go through the accounts of royalty in all editions". On 23-9-1946, an award was actually given by the arbitrators that the publishers would pay Rs. 3250/- as compensation to the applt. On 18-1-1947, the applt. applied for the filing of the award Under Section 14 of the Act and the proceedings initiated on that appln. came to be numbered as 48 of 1947. Another appln. Under Section 33 of the Act for setting aside the award was made by the publishers, and the case initiated on that was regd. as No. 12 of 1947. Appeal No. 47 of 1949 arises out of the former and Appeal No. 48 of 1949 arises out of the latter proceedings. The Ct. below set aside the award on the ground of misconduct. By that word it of course meant legal misconduct. The grounds on which it came to that conclusion were (1) that the arbitrators had without any justification refused to record the oral evidence offered by the publishers and (2) that they had delivered their award after the time fixed, even though the same had not been extended by the Ct.
(3.) LEARNED counsel on behalf of the applt. has challenged both these grounds of the Ct. below, and we proceed to examine his arguments in respect of them seriatim.;